If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

psychobabbling

After some initial doubt, I've for several reasons decided to start this topic. Most likely it will die a silent and unmourned death. We shall see.

First I want myself and the closet-sextourists to get out of each others' hair. I can't abide the fourletter words, the bad spelling, braggings and "I almost made it" stories, spiced with expressions like "hot babes" etc. On the other hand the !!!!WOW!!! types do not like words with many syl-lab-les, so here such is concentrated in one place, which they can avoid. In other words, the contributers to this topic can, without interference, bore each other to death, if we wish to.

Next: Having a soft spot for conspiracy theories I'm convinced, that not only anti-scammers read anti-scam sites, a lot of other groups do it also. The scammers themselves, agency representatives, ultrafeminists (just-hating-men-on-general-principles), chatters (having nothing to say, but doing it with many words) and those just curious. The possibilty of disinformation is real, but maybe it's possible to suppress it by being longwinded and circumstantial.

And last, the most important. Internet-dating is after all only one aspect of the the eternal "war of the sexes". To understand net-dating, I believe it's necessary to paint a broader background canvas. Say, are we just a bunch of grumpy querulants or is there really a difference between not being able to get along with your next-door childhood love and a FSUW? Where and what is the difference? Even without a computer, a different cultural background or alcoholism, Sue-Ellen could still be a conartist or pro-dater. Especially if she's good-looking.

I'm not completely sceptical about FSU dating (internet or not). In the last app. 18 years I've had three longer relationships (in the biblical sense) with SFUW, lasting alltogether 14 years. These relationships broke up for the same personal reasons, as any other relationships do. And I've had my share of scandinavian psychos. For me the question is the PROBABILITY of meeting "straights" or "bends" in each group.

So I invite for wievs on this. And I have a few proposals for background-basics:

I believe, that we like all other animals fundamentally are biological robots. We have a digestive system with two openings, a need to reproduce and to fight for a place in a predatory system. That's our startingpoint. But compared to other animals, we also have rather complex emotions and intellect. We have a possibility, individually or culturally, to be more than just reptile-brained. And different individuals/cultures/subcultures use this possibility in various degrees.

And I also suggest to sort out the differences between women and men. For the present bunch of probably half-machos it's maybe an idiotic question. But believe me, in this time of unisex, feminism, equal opportunities and so on, the issue has seriously, repeatedly and heatedly been raised, if there IS any difference (in spite of different plumbing and men's inability to get pregnant). I strongly support the idea, that women and men are almost different species, and as in any other contact with ETs, we need a lot of diplomacy to establish peaceful contact.

"You believe that an individual can 'will' him or herself to a higher state, while I say he can only do that which evolution will allow. There is no scientific evidence of 'willing' happening."

There's also no scietific evidence of 'willing' not happening. For the simple reason, that science isn't especially competent in this area. You can just as well ask a priest or a guy at the pub. They are just as qualified.

My suggestion isn't, that 'willing' is a process, where we can go straight from 'will' (without any intermediaries) to directly influencing our degree of 'enligtenment'. While 'magic' (transcending ordinary life manifestations) is a theoretical possibility, as e.g. instantly changing our being at a deep level, or performing meta- or paraphysical acts, that's not what I intended.

What I tried to say is, that inside the scope of ordinary consciousness it is possible to make decisions (choosing, 'willing') such processes, as can lead us to a degree of higher existential functionality, i.e. using our potential more fully. At least some of those examples of methods I brought up ARE verified (meditation, hemisphere syncronization....) to acchieve this aim.

There's nothing especially unattainable or mystic about such methods, they are not more difficult to use than to get a driver's license (which can be bad enough for some people, but usually not impossible). When it comes to it, this is just the same as exercising any other potential we have (learning languages or rollerscating). The limit is our personal motivation.

The discussion has now come to a point, where the subjects 'evidence' and 'belief' are getting central importance. Epistemology. You mention, that monks etc through sensory deprivation experience certain states/situations. From what basis can these experiences be evaluated as evidential or not? Science, psychology, religion or sheer quantity (how many persons have these experiences, and how do they compare)?

Ofcourse it's clearly an advantage to have experienced or have some firsthand knowledge of any 'evidence' before evaluating it. Besides, if we present conclusions, we must also state the 'perspective', from which we observe and examine. At least for the purpose of communication. Otherwise such 'conclusions' will turn into: "Is", ..."isn't", ..."is", which doesn't lead anywhere.

Most human methods for finding truth (and thereby the 'conclusions arrived at), are in one way or another insufficient. We can find 'local' parts on our maps of reality, which fairly accurately describes their own part of the 'territory', but not ALL the territory (of reality). Including science, which while covering its own ground rather well, certainly has some (selfchosen) blind spots.

I'm not trying to introduce sloppy thinking by suggesting, that all 'truths' are true in a relative sense. There are conclusions, which are more accurate or 'true' than others, but they are still only approximatively true compared to ultimate reality. This is not central for this post. Only to prevent suspicions of a philosophy for morons.

GGB (great grandfather badger), who is a kind of spokesman, or rather spokesbadger, for the wisdom of the forefathers (and ofcourse foremothers) has asked me to post this:

"Because of long, dark and boring winter evenings, dumb blondes invent many words and many things. But never invent petfood for badgers. Now spirits angry."

Honestly, half of the time I don't know, what he's talking about.

With this, and unless something really fascinating turns up, I would like to announce my (possible gradual) retirement from this forum. For me 'psychobabbling' has run its course, and I will continue my exploration of infinity elsewhere.

So for the time being, thanks to all readers and contributors (naturally and especially PeopleS) for joining. It's been a great time. Also thanks to admin of the forum for liberal allowance of our wild digressions. May you all escape the attention of the unintelligent designer of the universe and live your lives in peace.

quote:Originally posted by swede
[br]GGB (great grandfather badger), who is a kind of spokesman, or rather spokesbadger, for the wisdom of the forefathers (and ofcourse foremothers) has asked me to post this:

"Because of long, dark and boring winter evenings, dumb blondes invent many words and many things. But never invent petfood for badgers. Now spirits angry."

Honestly, half of the time I don't know, what he's talking about.

With this, and unless something really fascinating turns up, I would like to announce my (possible gradual) retirement from this forum. For me 'psychobabbling' has run its course, and I will continue my exploration of infinity elsewhere.

So for the time being, thanks to all readers and contributors (naturally and especially PeopleS) for joining. It's been a great time. Also thanks to admin of the forum for liberal allowance of our wild digressions. May you all escape the attention of the unintelligent designer of the universe and live your lives in peace.

Well done Swede, thanks. I"m trying to find the time to post all the Eustace Haney letters I've collected the last couple of months. RULadys, URLadys, and all the other Confidential Connection clones are at it again. And... so proud to say this... FSU MOB is out of the house... took Child Protection Services (CPS) to do it, but FINALLY! Whew! Man, I thought this day would never arrive. Absolutely unbelievable.

Hey guys! swede, you will be missed. I hope all is well and that your future is bright. Thanks for the good times here at psychobabbling!

Prometheus, I hope things finally work out for you.

I'm continuing my contact with my FSU huny. I'll only know for sure what the future will be after my next trip. We all know there are certain signals given that a guy can pretty much expect on a second trip since any apprehension and first meeting jitters should be long gone at that point. As I say... we'll see...

In the mean time, things have been kind of weird around Stately Smoks Manor lately. I received a letter from my ex a few weeks ago telling me she has finally straightened herself out, and even more surprising, I ran into the one before her at the local Walgreens (pharmacy). I have to admit, she looked damn good! But, not good enough to overcome past baggage! (... for more than a one time quicky anyway!)

She got back ine the house twice again, but this summer will mark a year of FSU MOB freedom. Damn it's been an impossibly difficult, tough road, but so worth it to be done. She's got her NS-400 on file for citizenship, a new apartment, a new job, and six boyfriends. I'm finally enjoying life again at the mid-century mark with a calm and caring girlfriend, and my children.